Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits
as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter
JENNIFER AAKER
KATHLEEN D. VOHS
CASSIE MOGILNER
Consumers use warmth and competence, two fundamental dimensions that govern
social judgments of people, to form perceptions of firms. Three experiments showed
that consumers perceive nonprofits as being warmer than for-profits but as less
competent. Further, consumers are less willing to buy a product made by a nonprofit
than a for-profit because of their perception that the firm lacks competence. Consequently, when perceived competence of a nonprofit is boosted through subtle
cues that connote credibility, discrepancies in willingness to buy disappear. In fact,
when consumers perceive high levels of competence and warmth, they feel admiration for the firm—which translates to consumers’ increased desire to buy. This
work highlights the importance of consumer stereotypes about nonprofit and forprofit companies that, at baseline, come with opposing advantages and disadvantages but that can be altered.
I
school investigated the organization and declared that
DonorsChoose.org was unlikely to stay in business. They
even went so far as to withdraw a large gift tagged for the
organization because they believed the nonprofit’s business
plan was shabby. Seven years on, the organization is still
afloat. DonorsChoose.org is, in fact, hugely successful, having won multiple awards and much acclaim.
We argue that the underlying story of DonorsChoose.org
is a common one. The organization was perceived as caring
and targeting a worthy cause, but as not possessing a high
level of competency. This led to our inquiry into how people
view nonprofit and for-profit organizations. We propose that
people possess stereotypes of organizations merely based
on the knowledge that a firm is a for-profit or not-for-profit.
People’s judgments of others often fall along two primary
dimensions, namely, how much they exude warmth and competence (Judd et al. 2005). These two dimensions emerge in
contexts as varied as split-second evaluations (Ybarra, Chan,
and Park 2001), liked and disliked groups (Cuddy, Fiske,
and Glick 2007), employee hiring decisions (Casciaro and
Lobo 2008), leadership qualifications (Chemers 2001), and
romantic partner choices (Sinclair and Fehr 2005). The robustness of these two dimensions has led them to be deemed
“fundamental” (Fiske, Cuddy, and Glick 2007). We examined whether warmth and competence color the way consumers view companies—in particular, nonprofits and forprofits—and whether those judgments influence marketplace
decisions. We then tested whether consumers’ stereotypes
can be altered to enhance perceptions of nonprofits (since
n 2002, recent college graduate Charles Best started a
philanthropic organization in the basement of his parents’
home (Alter 2007). The organization consisted of a Web
site (DonorsChoose.org) that allowed teachers to easily post
requests for donations to fill specific pedagogical needs.
Through DonorsChoose.org, requesters are not required to
write in a heavy, formal grant-writing form (which is the
norm when submitting aid requests); they can simply use
plain language. For instance, a teacher in a high-poverty
district of New York City wrote to ask for “$1266 to purchase five laptop computers to help build the students’ math
and literacy skills.”
Initially, outsiders were skeptical that the idea would
work. In fact, MBA graduates from a prominent business
Jennifer Aaker is the General Atlantic Professor at Stanford University,
Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA 94305 (aaker_jennifer@gsb
.stanford.edu). Kathleen D. Vohs is the University of Minnesota McKnight
Land-Grant Professor, McKnight Presidential Fellow, and associate professor of marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, 3-150 321 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (kvohs@
umn.edu). Cassie Mogilner is assistant professor of marketing at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19104 (mogilner@wharton.upenn.edu). Correspondence: Jennifer
Aaker. This research was partially supported by McKnight Foundation
funds awarded to Kathleen D. Vohs. Many thanks to Bo Ah Kwon for
research support. All three authors contributed equally; order was determined by two coin tosses over cocktails.
John Deighton served as editor and Rebecca Ratner served as associate
editor for this article.
Electronically published February 24, 2010
224
! 2010 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 37 ● August 2010
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2010/3702-0010$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/651566
FIRM STEREOTYPES MATTER
they lagged behind their for-profit counterparts on key metrics of marketplace appeal).
Across three experiments, we found that stereotypes do
in fact exist for nonprofit and for-profit organizations and
that they predict crucial marketplace behaviors, such as likelihood to visit a Web site and willingness to buy a product
from the organization. In identifying these stereotypes, our
findings underscore the importance of framing firms as nonprofits or for-profits (e.g., through the use of dot-org vs.
dot-com Internet domain names). To our knowledge, this
research is the first to investigate whether stereotypes are
used to evaluate nonprofit and for-profit organizations,
whether these stereotypes have downstream consequences
on consumer behavior, and whether such stereotypes can be
dispelled through marketing actions.
UNDERSTANDING WARMTH AND
COMPETENCE
The literatures of social psychology and organizational
behavior are replete with findings showing that people differentiate others on the basis of their apparent warmth and
competence. Although definitions vary, warmth judgments
typically include perceptions of generosity, kindness, honesty, sincerity, helpfulness, trustworthiness, and thoughtfulness, whereas competence judgments include confidence,
effectiveness, intelligence, capability, skillfulness, and competitiveness (e.g., Aaker 1997; Grandey et al. 2005; Judd et
al. 2005; Yzerbyt, Provost, and Corneille 2005). At a superordinate level, demonstrating warmth suggests a motivation to be other-focused and behave in line with moral
codes, whereas competence suggests the effective capacity
to bring about one’s intent (Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick 2008).
The two dimensions are not only central to person perception, but they also account for a large share of the variance when targets are judged through the lens of a stereotype. The term stereotype means a shorthand, blanket judgment containing evaluative components. For example, groups
such as rich people often are seen as high in competence
but low in warmth, whereas housewives and the elderly
often are seen as high in warmth but low in competence
(Fiske et al. 2002).
Although the correlation between the two dimensions varies across stimuli, the two dimensions are often conceptualized as orthogonal. For example, in group or cultural judgments, perceivers tend to ascribe one or the other positive
quality to a group, but not both. Competent leaders are
perceived as less warm, nice, and likeable (Tiedens 2001).
Working moms typically are reduced to one of two subtypes:
warm but incompetent (e.g., homemakers) or competent but
cold (e.g., professionals; Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick 2004).
Yet, in judgments of individuals, the dimensions can be (but
are not necessarily) positively related: an individual can be
seen as high in warmth and competence or low in both
dimensions (Judd et al. 2005; Rosenberg, Nelson, and Vivekananthan 1968). To wit, the well-known halo effect in
which individuals who are seen positively on one trait are
225
also seen positively on other traits (Kelly 1955). What remains unclear, though, is whether the same lens that colors
perceptions of individuals (warmth and competence) applies
to companies. If so, what is the nature of the relationship
between the two dimensions? How easily can these stereotypes change?
SOCIAL JUDGMENTS OF FIRMS
Are companies viewed through the same lens that colors
perceptions of individuals and groups? On the one hand,
social judgments of warmth and competence in humans
seem different from psychologically rendering an inanimate
object animate. Further, the origins of competence and
warmth perceptions relate to evolutionary pressures, which
play little role in viewing firms. Many argue that cultural
animals must determine (1) whether the entity is friend or
foe, intending good or ill (i.e., is warm), and then (2) whether
the entity has the ability to enact its intentions (i.e., is competent; Fiske et al. 2007). Thus, warmth and competence
dimensions provide essential answers to competition and
status concerns that promote reproduction and survival.
From this perspective, then, it may be unlikely that such
basic assessments play a role in perceptions of companies,
for which evolutionary pressures are irrelevant to consumers’ functioning.
On the other hand, marketers put forth and consumers
adopt personified products (Aaker 1997; Aggarwal and McGill 2007; Fournier 1998), suggesting that consumers are
open to the notion that marketplace entities can possess
human-like traits. Further, companies often are viewed as
having a reputation, which is a global evaluation of an organization accumulated over a period of time (Fombrun and
Shanley 1990). In fact, research on firms’ reputations alludes
to both competence- and warmth-related judgments. For example, reputation is said to signal high-quality offerings,
value creation, and a good investment opportunity (Devine
and Halpern 2001), suggesting that a reputable firm is one
that is high in competence. However, reputation also signals
trust, such as when consumers believe that they can count
on the firm to do what is best for them, to treat employees
and consumers fairly, and to repair relationships if mistakes
are made (Aaker, Fournier, and Brasel 2004)—judgments
that fall under the warmth umbrella. Collectively, this research suggests that consumers can make judgments about
whether a firm is warm or competent and, indeed, may be
motivated to do so.
Differences in perceptions of nonprofits versus for-profits
may arise from work practices within each type of firm that
differentially foster behavioral patterns reflecting warmth
versus competence. Research on promotion practices suggest that for-profit executives are often promoted because
they have shown competence and managerial skill, whereas
executives in nonprofits are promoted because they have
shown commitment to the social good of the organization
(Moret 2004). In other words, employees in for-profits are
promoted because of their competencies, and employees in
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
226
nonprofits are promoted because of their attachment to the
organization’s mission.
Further, when employees working at nonprofits versus forprofit organizations were asked to report how they felt about
working at their companies, one of the largest differences
was the answer to the question “My supervisor, or someone
at work, seems to care about me as a person.” Nonprofit
workers responded in the affirmative to a greater extent than
did for-profit workers. Further, a greater focus on hard
bottom-line metrics (e.g., operating efficiency and cost) was
reported at for-profits than nonprofits (Blizzard 2002). Such
differences hint that nonprofits’ work practices may align
themselves with the warm side of the dimensional space,
whereas for-profits’ work practices better align with the
competent side.
An independent line of research also suggests that perceptions of warmth and competence might be particularly
relevant as a lens for consumers. Nonprofits are often seen
as more trustworthy than for-profits (Hansmann 1981),
partly due to people’s fiscal associations with the for-profit’s
motive. For example, in categories such as health care, nonprofits are trusted more than for-profits because the concept
of making a profit contradicts the values inherent in the
provision of quality medical service (Arrow 1963). Forprofit firms can, however, improve consumer perceptions
and influence purchase behavior by affiliating with a social
cause or welfare initiative (Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and
Braig 2004).
Building on these streams of research, we hypothesize
that consumers distinguish between nonprofits and for-profits and do so on the basis of warmth and competence.
H1: A nonprofit organization will be judged as higher
on warmth-related traits (e.g., warm, kind, generous), than a for-profit organization.
H2: A for-profit organization will be judged as higher
on competence-related traits (e.g., competent, efficient, effective), than a nonprofit organization.
If judgments of nonprofits and for-profits are filtered
through the lens of warmth and competence, what are the
downstream consequences? In the stereotyping literature,
being seen as competent is bidirectionally linked to being
seen as high in status (Fiske et al. 2002). Given that producing a high-quality offering is generally the aim of companies, high levels of competence should signal to consumers that companies offer high-quality products (Goldsmith,
Lafferty, and Newell 2000). Building on these findings, we
posited that to the extent that companies are perceived as
competent, there is likely to be a spillover effect onto willingness to buy a product from that organization. As a consequence, consumers should show greater willingness to buy
products from for-profits than nonprofits.
Being judged as high in warmth, although positive, is not
germane to whether a firm will deliver a high-quality offering. For example, work on service encounters suggests
that warmth alone is not enough to boost desire to engage
with a service organization. Being warm (or “authentic”)
only aided customer satisfaction when it was present in an
already competent service encounter (Grandey et al. 2005),
a finding that again underscores the importance of competence. Another study showed that expected satisfaction of a
service encounter reliably related to the firm’s warmth—but
the effect of competence on expected satisfaction was seven
times stronger. Moreover, when perceptions of a firm’s competence are low, no amount of authenticity or warmth compensated in terms of customer satisfaction (Grandey et al.
2005). To be sure, there are likely exceptions (e.g., product
categories, individual differences, situational variables) but
we hypothesize that, generally, judgments that a firm is
warm will not translate to positive behaviors toward its product offerings, whereas judgments of competency will. More
formally,
H3: Consumers will be more willing to buy a product
made by a for-profit than a nonprofit firm.
H4: Perceptions of the firm’s competence will mediate the effect of labeling the seller as a nonprofit versus for-profit on consumers’ willingness
to buy.
Because we predict that willingness to buy from nonprofits will suffer because of relatively low perceptions of
competence, boosting perceived competence of nonprofits
should increase consumers’ willingness to buy from that
organization. Increasing perceived competence could be as
easy as using a subtle prime. For example, wearing a formal
lab coat, as done in the (in)famous Milgram obedience experiments, enhances credibility and respect (Burger 2009).
Further, work in marketing shows that credibility cues serve
as an effective tool to improve perceptions of competence
(Moscarani 2007) and in so doing can increase purchase
likelihood (Berger, Draganska, and Simonson 2007) and
choice (Erdem and Swait 2004). Thus, we hypothesize that
a credibility cue will increase perceptions of competence,
which should benefit perceptions of nonprofit companies in
particular (as they would otherwise be predicted to be
viewed as low in competence). In so doing, competence
cues should increase willingness to buy from a nonprofit.
H5: Providing cues that increase perceptions of a nonprofit as competent will increase consumers’ willingness to buy from the nonprofit firm.
Experiment 1 tested the basic premise that stereotypes of
nonprofits and for-profits exist and served to differentiate
the two types of companies. Experiments 2 and 3 determined
whether cues that increase an organization’s perceived competence can positively impact consumers’ willingness to buy
from a nonprofit. An equally important objective was to
determine whether our basic effect impacts actual behavior
and persists over time and whether these perceptions can
be changed.
FIRM STEREOTYPES MATTER
MOZILLA EXPERIMENT 1:
STEREOTYPES OF NONPROFITS AND
FOR-PROFITS
To test hypotheses 1 and 2, we relied on a two-level single
factor design that manipulated the type of organization (forprofit vs. nonprofit). To reduce demand, we operationalized
organization type using the simple and subtle manipulation
of a dot-org versus dot-com Internet domain name. To increase external validity, we utilized a real product made by
an organization with both a dot-com and dot-org arm: Mozilla, which is the open-source software organization that
supports the Firefox Web browser.
Method
Participants (N p 127; 59% female; ages 18–42, M p
21) from Stanford University were paid $5 to take part in
a “New Product Study.” They were presented with a picture
and attribute information about an actual messenger bag
made by Mozilla. Participants read a description about the
Ogio-designed messenger bag, described as a computer
friendly carryall with features such as a padded laptop
sleeve, an audio pocket, file organizer and center storage,
four exterior pockets, and an airline ticket sleeve. The type
of the organization was manipulated with the Mozilla URL
at the top of the questionnaire: www.mozilla.com (for-profit
condition) versus www.mozilla.org (nonprofit condition).
Participants were then asked a series of questions. Of
central interest, participants were asked, “To what extent do
you believe that Mozilla is ____?” on a set of 40 traits,
which included 34 filler traits plus three traits to comprise
the warmth index (warm, kind, generous; a p .83) and three
traits to comprise the competence index (competent, effective, efficient; a p .84; Grandey et al. 2005; Judd et al.
2005). Trait assessments were reported on Likert scales anchored by 1 (not at all) and 7 (very much). At the end of
the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate the degree
to which they agreed with the following statements (1 p
strongly disagree; 7 p strongly agree): “I believe Mozilla
is a nonprofit organization,” and “I believe Mozilla is a forprofit organization.” Finally, demographic information was
collected and participants were debriefed.
Results and Discussion
Two-level analyses of variance (ANOVAs) revealed main
effects on the manipulation checks. As expected, participants
held a stronger belief that Mozilla.com (vs. Mozilla.org) was
a for-profit organization (M.com p 5.69, SD p 1.45 vs. M.org
p 4.95, SD p 1.76; F(1, 126) p 6.74, p p .01). Also as
expected, participants held a stronger belief that Mozilla.org (vs. Mozilla.com) was a nonprofit organization
(M.org p 2.94, SD p 1.78 vs. M.com p 2.29, SD p 1.40;
F(1, 126) p 5.14, p p .03).
In support of hypothesis 1, participants perceived Mozilla.org to be warmer than Mozilla.com (M.org p 4.22, SD
p 1.04 vs. M.com p 3.64, SD p .98; F(1, 126) p 10.55,
227
p p .001). In support of hypothesis 2, participants perceived
Mozilla.com to be more competent than Mozilla.org (M.com
p 5.64, SD p .83 vs. M.org p 5.29, SD p 1.06; F(1, 126)
p 4.40, p p .04). Importantly, perceptions of the firm on
the filler traits yielded no differences ( p’s 1 .10). There were
only two exceptions. Embedded in the set of 34 filler traits
were two traits reflective of the negative associations with
competence and warmth: “greedy” and “needy.” As intuited,
Mozilla.com was perceived as greedier than Mozilla.org
(M.com p 3.51, SD p 1.23 vs. M.org p 2.95, SD p 1.42;
F(1, 126) p 5.45, p p .02), and Mozilla.org was perceived
as needier than Mozilla.com (M.org p 3.06, SD p 1.49 vs.
M.com p 2.56, SD p 1.32; F(1, 126) p 4.01, p p .05).
In experiment 1, we offered a first glimpse into consumers’ perceptions of companies framed as dot-orgs and dotcoms (see fig. 1). The results suggest that by using domain
names to represent the firm as a for-profit or nonprofit, we
swayed participants’ view of the firm on judgments of
warmth and competence. Note that we did not see movement
on other traits as a function of dot-com versus dot-org framing, indicating that these effects are specific to the dimensions of warmth and competence. For-profits, as hypothesized, were viewed as more competent than nonprofits,
which in turn were viewed as warmer than for-profits.
To gain greater confidence in the generalizability of these
results, we conducted an ancillary study where we replicated
experiment 1 with a more direct manipulation of organization type. Participants (N p 123; ages 18–70, M p 35;
61% female) were presented with an advertisement for the
Firefox messenger bag, described as either being created by
“the nonprofit organization, Mozilla” or by “the for-profit
organization, Mozilla.” As predicted, organization type influenced perceptions of the organization, whereby the forprofit (vs. nonprofit) label led participants to perceive the
firm as more competent (Mfp p 5.63, SD p .95 vs. Mnp p
5.27, SD p 1.08; F(1, 122) p 3.84, p p .05), and the nonprofit (vs. for-profit) label led participants to perceive the
firm as warmer (Mnp p 4.75, SD p .95 vs. Mfp p 4.31,
FIGURE 1
EXPERIMENT 1: PERCEIVED WARMTH AND COMPETENCE
ASSOCIATED WITH ORGANIZATION TYPE
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
228
SD p 1.35; F(1, 122) p 3.89, p p .05). No differences in
ratings of filler traits were found. This conceptual replication
suggests that the effect is not particular to Web site domain
names. Rather it reflects general perceptions of nonprofit
versus for-profit organizations, which can be elicited by
something as subtle as three letters at the end of a Web
address.
Together, the results suggest that stereotypes of organizations indeed exist and that warmth and competence are
organizing dimensions that help consumers categorize companies. However, do these perceptions of organizations color
the way in which their products are evaluated, thereby impacting consumers’ willingness to buy? Further, are there
conditions under which competence judgments of nonprofits
could shift such that consumers would be more willing to
buy from a nonprofit? If so, what mechanisms mediate such
effects? Experiments 2 and 3 were designed to address these
questions.
WORLD OF GOOD EXPERIMENT 2:
PURCHASING BEHAVIOR AND
CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF
NONPROFITS
Experiment 2 tested perceptions of a firm’s warmth and
competence on consumers’ willingness to purchase a product from the firm. Furthermore, we sought to illuminate the
dynamics of boosting a nonprofit’s perceived competence
through an endorsement by a highly credible source to determine whether that could impact consumers’ willingness
to buy in the short run and long run.
Therefore, experiment 2 was created with four goals in
mind. First, we wanted to test the marketplace consequences
of being a nonprofit or for-profit organization. We hypothesized that consumers would be more willing to buy a product made by a for-profit than a nonprofit (hypothesis 3).
Second, we wanted to explore whether elevated levels of
perceived competence indeed drive the preference for products made by for-profits versus nonprofits (hypothesis 4).
Third, we asked whether the basic effect could be moderated
by a cue that increases perceptions of a nonprofit as competent to determine whether consumers’ willingness to buy
from a credible nonprofit can be heightened (hypothesis 5).
Fourth, for robustness and external validity, we measured
self-reported behavior over time to determine whether the
effect would influence participants’ likelihood to visit a forprofit (vs. a nonprofit) firm’s Web site. Thus, we used a 2
(organization type: for-profit vs. nonprofit) # 2 (endorsement credibility: high vs. low) between-subject design and
a 1-month lagged dependent measure to examine Web site
behavior.
Pretest
First, to identify a manipulation of source credibility, we
conducted a pretest among people from the same population
as that sampled in the main experiment. Extant research
shows that sources vary on credibility, which has a significant impact on persuasion (e.g., Berger et al. 2007; Sternthal, Dholakia, and Leavitt 1978). Thus, we manipulated
source credibility through a media endorsement. Specifically, participants (N p 55 ; ages 18–49, M p 21; 54% female) reported their impressions of various print media including the two key sources, Wall Street Journal and Detroit
Free Press (counterbalanced). For each source, participants
rated the extent to which they agreed with the statements,
“I believe the Wall Street Journal [Detroit Free Press] is a
highly credible organization,” and “I feel that the Wall Street
Journal [Detroit Free Press] is an expert source” (1 p
strongly disagree; 7 p strongly agree), averaged for each
source to create a credibility index (aWSJ p .61; aDFP p
.74). The results of a t-test revealed that participants perceived the Wall Street Journal to be more credible than
Detroit Free Press (MWSJ p 5.83, SD p .90 vs. MDFP p
3.80, SD p 1.08; t(1, 54) p 12.04, p ! .001).
Method
Participants (N p 125; ages 18–66, M p 22; 59% female) at Stanford were randomly assigned to one of the four
conditions comprising the 2 (organization type: for-profit vs.
nonprofit) # 2 (endorsement credibility: high vs. low) between-subject design. Participants were first presented with
three ecofriendly laptop bags sold by World of Good. The
organization billed itself as “the world’s first online marketplace to convene thousands of People-Positive and EcoPositive sellers and products all in one place, empowering
you to shop in ways that align with your personal values.”
The status of World of Good as a for-profit or a nonprofit
was manipulated by domain name (WorldofGood.com vs.
WorldofGood.org). Next, participants read an external endorsement of World of Good, provided by either a highly
credible source (Wall Street Journal) or a low credibility source (Detroit Free Press). The endorsement read:
“WorldofGood.com[.org] gives shoppers who care about
making a difference access to great products that help people
and the planet. Socially responsible shopping just got bigger
and better!”
To measure willingness to buy, participants were asked:
“How interested are you in buying a laptop bag from World
of Good?” (1 p not at all, 7 p very much); “How likely
are you to shop at World of Good?” (1 p not at all, 7 p
very much); and “What are your impressions of the laptop
bags from World of Good?” (1 p negative, bad, 7 p positive, good); a p .78. Next, on 7-point scales, participants
rated their perceptions of the organization’s competence
(competent, effective, and efficient; a p .73) and warmth
(warm, kind, and generous; a p .80). Finally, at the end
of the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate on 7point scales the extent to which they believed World of Good
to be a for-profit organization and the extent to which they
believed it to be a nonprofit organization (as a check of the
efficacy of the organization type manipulation). Participants
were thanked and paid.
Finally, to gain insight into actual behavior and the du-
FIRM STEREOTYPES MATTER
ration of the effects, participants were e-mailed a follow-up
survey one month after the study asking them to complete
some follow-up questions to the “World of Good Study”
that they had participated in the prior month. Approximately
50% of the participants responded (response rate did not
vary by condition, p 1 .10) to the same items as measured
in the initial survey. In addition, as a behavioral measure,
we asked participants whether they had visited World of
Good’s Web site since learning about it in the original
survey.
Results and Discussion
First, a 2 (organization type: for-profit vs. nonprofit) #
2 (endorsement credibility: Wall Street Journal vs. Detroit
Free Press) ANOVA was conducted on the nonprofit manipulation check scale. As expected, participants in the
WorldofGood.com (vs. WorldofGood.org) condition held a
stronger belief that World of Good was a for-profit organization (M.com p 5.41, SD p 1.49 vs. M.org p 4.38, SD p
1.91; F(1, 121) p 10.46, p p .002). Also as expected, participants held a stronger belief that WorldofGood.org (vs.
WorldofGood.com) was a nonprofit organization (M.org p
3.89, SD p 2.01 vs. M.com p 2.64, SD p 1.83; F(1, 121)
p 12.36, p p .001).
Second, to test hypothesis 1, the 2 (organization type) #
2 (endorsement) ANOVA was run on perceptions of warmth.
The results reveal only a main effect of organization type
such that irrespective of endorsement, WorldofGood.org
was perceived as warmer than WorldofGood.com (M.org p
4.88, SD p .92 vs. M.com p 4.31, SD p 1.25; F(1, 121) p
8.48, p p .004). To test hypothesis 2, the same 2 (organization type) # 2 (endorsement) ANOVA was run on perceptions of the organization’s competence, revealing an interaction (F(1, 121) p 10.51, p p .002). Contrasts showed
that when World of Good was endorsed by the Detroit Free
Press, the dot-com was seen as more competent than the
dot-org (M.com p 5.29, SD p 1.07 vs. M.org p 4.44, SD p
.94; F(1, 121) p 10.35, p p .002), conceptually replicating
experiment 1. However, when World of Good was endorsed
by the Wall Street Journal, perceived competence of the
dot-org rose to the level of the dot-com (M.com p 4.69,
SD p .92 vs. M.org p 5.04, SD p 1.14; F(1, 121) p 1.82,
p 1 .10). Further, a regression of willingness to buy on both
warmth and competence indices revealed that perceived
warmth did not have a significant effect (b p .08, t p
.91, p 1 .10) but that perceived competence positively influenced consumers’ willingness to purchase from the organization (b p .40, t p 4.48, p ! .001).
Third, to test hypotheses 3 and 5, the 2 (organization type)
# 2 (endorsement) ANOVA was conducted on willingness
to buy. The results of this test showed a significant interaction on the three-item index (F(1, 121) p 19.37, p !
.001). (These results replicate when the single item, willingness to buy measure, was used.) Follow-up contrasts
showed that when World of Good was endorsed by the
Detroit Free Press, willingness to buy was higher for the
dot-com than the dot-org (Mfp p 4.96, SD p 1.04 vs. Mnp
229
p 4.08, SD p 1.05; F(1, 121) p 10.29, p p .002), supporting hypothesis 3. However, when the World of Good
was endorsed by the Wall Street Journal, this effect was
reversed: participants were more likely to buy from the dotorg than the dot-com (Mnp p 4.75, SD p 1.18 vs. Mfp p
3.92, SD p 1.03; F(1, 121) p 9.09, p p .003), supporting
hypothesis 5.
In support of hypotheses 4 and 5, a moderated mediation
analysis revealed that perceptions of the organization’s competence were responsible for these results (see table 1 for
details). To understand the role of perceived competence on
participants’ willingness to buy, a separate mediation analysis was conducted just among participants considering an
organization endorsed by the Detroit Free Press. First, willingness to buy was regressed on organization type (b p
!.40, t p !3.31, p p .002). Next, perceived competence
was regressed on organization type (b p !.39, t p !3.29,
p p .002). Then, willingness to buy was regressed on perceived competence (b p .44, t p 3.76, p ! .001). Finally,
when willingness to buy was regressed on both organization
type and perceived competence, the effect of organization
type reduced in significance (b p !.26, t p !2.13, p p
.04), whereas the effect of perceived competence remained
highly significant (b p .34, t p 2.72, p p .009; Sobel
z p !2.48, p p .01), supportive of mediation. Among participants considering an organization endorsed by the Wall
Street Journal, organization type did not have a differential
effect on perceived competence (b p .165 , t p 1.32, p 1
.10), rendering the full mediation analysis unnecessary. Together, these results suggest that consumers perceiving an
organization as competent are critical for their willingness
to buy a product from the organization, and these perceptions
can be influenced by the endorsement from a highly credible
source (see fig. 2).
TABLE 1
MODERATED MEDIATION RESULTS IN EXPERIMENTS 2–3:
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PERCEIVED COMPETENCE
Path
Experiment 2:
Organization type #
Organization type #
competence
CompetencerWtB
Organization type #
Competence r WtB
Experiment 3:
Organization type #
Organization type #
competence
CompetencerWtB
Organization type #
Competence r WtB
Beta
t-stat
p-value
.37
4.39
p ! .001
.28
.44
.27
.36
3.21
5.36
3.30
4.43
p p .002
p ! .001
p p .001
p ! .001
prime r WtB
prime r
!.27
3.40
p p .001
prime rWtB
!.29
.71
!.08
!.69
3.76
12.29
1.30
11.42
p ! .001
p ! .001
p 1 .10
p ! .001
prime r WtB
prime r
prime rWtB
NOTE.—WtB p willingness to buy. A difference between means t-test was
conducted to examine the decrease in beta coefficients in the tests of mediation,
all p’s ! .05. Sobel tests confirmed the significant drop in the influence of the
interaction on willingness to buy: E2 perceived competence (z p 3.58, p !
.001), E3 perceived competence (z p 2.77, p p .006).
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
230
FIGURE 2
EXPERIMENT 2: WILLINGNESS TO BUY FROM
ORGANIZATION, ENDORSED BY HIGH VS.
LOW CREDIBLITY SOURCE
Together, these results suggest that in general (i.e., with
a weak or no endorsement), consumers want to buy from
for-profits more than nonprofits due to greater perceived
competence of the firm. However, with a strong endorsement, nonprofits (vs. for-profits) benefit because consumers
show a greater willingness to buy from them due to their
combination of perceived warmth and competence.
A Longitudinal Analysis. The design of experiment 2
afforded the opportunity to examine the temporal persistence
of the effect and looked at actual behavior. We contacted
the participants one month after they completed the questionnaire. We asked again about their willingness to buy
questions and also asked whether they had visited the World
of Good Web site in the last month. When the organization
had been described as a nonprofit, participants were more
likely to have visited the Web site when it had been endorsed
by the Wall Street Journal (27%) than when it had been
endorsed by the Detroit Free Press (0%; x 2 p 3.76, p p
.05). However, when the organization had been described
as a for-profit, the credibility of the endorsement did not
impact participants’ likelihood to have visited the Web site
(25% vs. 18%; x 2 p .13, p 1 .10).
Additionally, the basic effect on willingness to buy persisted. The 2 # 2 ANOVA conducted on the willingness
to buy index (a p .85) revealed a significant interaction
(F(1, 38) p 15.38, p ! .001). Follow-up contrasts showed
that when the World of Good had been endorsed by the
Detroit Free Press, participants still reported to be more
likely to buy from World of Good when it was framed as
a dot-com versus a dot-org (M.com p 4.22, a vs. M.org p
3.08, SD p .92; F(1, 38) p 7.97, p p .008). However, a
reversal occurred when World of Good had been endorsed
by the Wall Street Journal, such that participants reported
to be more likely to buy from World of Good when it had
been framed as a dot-org versus a dot-com (M.org p 4.73,
SD p 1.04 vs. M.com p 3.70, SD p .71; F(1, 38) p 7.41,
p p .01). The results revealed that the aforementioned effects persist over time and extend to actual behavior.
The behavioral effects found in experiment 2 are important, particularly in light of extant research which suggests
that assessing changes in behavior is a valuable complement
to behavioral intentions (Baumeister, Vohs, and Funder
2007). Thus, the fact that we observed our basic effect both
behaviorally and longitudinally garners confidence in the
results found in experiment 1.
However, one concern in the design of experiment 2 involves the manipulation of source credibility and its influence on perceived competence. That is, a manipulation that
provides information that a particular nonprofit is competent
(e.g., recommendation from a credible source like the Wall
Street Journal) may legitimately change what can reasonably be expected from the organization. Would a manipulation that does not provide direct information that the given
nonprofit is in fact competent have conceptually similar effects? Since we sought to understand consumers’ perceptions of organizations as well as the broader ways in which
one can dispel a stereotype about nonprofits, it was important
to illustrate that hypotheses 4 and 5 hold without information
that might suggest direct information about a nonprofit’s
level of competence. Thus, experiment 3 relied on a subtle
prime (without information about the organization) to increase perceptions of a nonprofit as competent and in turn
increase consumers’ willingness to buy from the nonprofit.
GDITTY EXPERIMENT 3: CHANGING
PERCEPTIONS OF NONPROFITS
THROUGH PRIMING
Experiments 1 and 2 found that manipulating the firm’s
Internet domain name was sufficient to increase perceptions
of the firm as warm (in the case of dot-org) or competent
(in the case of dot-com). Therefore, consumers can and do
appear to differentiate between these two type of firms along
the same two dimensions that govern social judgments.
Building on these findings, experiment 3 was created with
three goals in mind. First, we sought to replicate evidence
for consumers’ greater willingness to buy from a for-profit
than a nonprofit (hypothesis 3) and for the driving role of
perceived competence in this effect (hypothesis 4).
Second, and perhaps most interesting, we examined
whether differences in willingness to buy could be moderated by boosting the perceived competence of nonprofits
through a cue as innocuous as a subtle prime. Recent research has shown that reminders of money concepts are
closely related to the idea of competency. For example, when
people are reminded of money, they are willing to take on
more work than necessary and work longer at challenging
tasks—even when given the opportunity to ask for help
(Vohs, Mead, and Goode 2006). Moreover, when people are
reminded of money (vs. not), they are more likely to feel
“strong” (Zhou, Vohs, and Baumeister 2009). Notably, these
effects occur when an individual handles cash, when monopoly money is merely in the same room, when the in-
FIRM STEREOTYPES MATTER
dividual is exposed to money-related words, and when dollar
bills float across on a computer screen saver. Hence, being
reminded of money, regardless of whether the individual is
in possession of actual money, influences perceived competence (Vohs et al. 2006).
Hence, we primed half of our participants with the concept
of money through an incidental exposure to an unrelated
advertisement mentioning money (Mogilner and Aaker
2009) with the intent of lending (not necessarily legitimate)
competence to the target organization. The other half of
participants was not exposed to the ad and thus no money
reminders. In the current setting, we predicted that the competence boost via a money prime would particularly affect
judgments of nonprofits because these organizations tend to
suffer from relatively low perceived competence. In the case
of for-profits (which are already associated with high levels
of competence), we did not predict the money prime to have
a significant effect.
Third, we sought to assess the generalizability of the effects identified in experiments 1 and 2 through their replication using a new firm and stimuli. We also moved away
from a student sample to establish the robustness of these
effects among a more representative U.S. sample. Thus, the
experiment was a 2 (organization type: for-profit vs. nonprofit) # 2 (prime: money vs. control) between-subject
design.
Method
A national sample of individuals (N p 154; ages 18–66,
M p 36; 66% female) were recruited and participated via
the Internet. Participants, each paid $5, were told that they
would be taking part in two studies. In the first, participants
were told that researchers were interested in how easy it is
to guess the topic of a newspaper article from its topic
sentence. Accordingly, they were presented with the beginning of a New York Times article, in which an advertisement
for a magazine subscription organization was embedded.
Half of the participants were exposed to an ad displaying
the magazines Fortune, Smart Money, and Money, which
activated the construct of money; the other half were not
exposed to the ad and therefore not primed (see Mogilner
and Aaker 2009).
Next, participants turned to the second, purportedly unrelated, study. They read about a new product, gDitty—a
social technology device that tracks physical activity
throughout the day and rewards its users for their physical
activity. As in experiment 1, the independent variable of
organization type was manipulated by simply altering the
domain name in the organization’s URL. To indicate a nonprofit organization, the Web site ended with dot-org (gDitty
.org); to indicate a for-profit organization, the Web site ended
in dot-com (gDitty.com).
Participants perused the actual Web site pages of gDitty.
Then they were asked a set of questions, including how
interested they were in buying a gDitty (1 p not at all, 7
p very) and their attitudes towards gDitty on two 7-point
scales (1 p negative, bad; 7 p positive, good). Participants’
231
responses on the three items were averaged to create a willingness-to-buy index (a p .93). Finally, participants were
also asked to rate the firm on a set of 40 traits, including
those that comprised the warmth index (warmth, generosity,
and kindness; a p .90) and the competence index (competence, effectiveness, and efficiency; a p .93). All participants were thanked, debriefed, and paid.
Results and Discussion
To retest hypothesis 1, a 2 (for-profit vs. nonprofit) # 2
(money prime vs. no prime) ANOVA was conducted on
perceptions of the organization’s warmth. Only the main
effect of organization type was significant. As predicted,
gDitty.org was perceived to be warmer than gDitty.com
(M.org p 4.68, SD p 1.29 vs. M.com p 4.24, SD p 1.23;
F(1, 150) p 4.37, p p .04), irrespective of the prime.
To retest hypothesis 2, the same 2 (for-profit vs. nonprofit)
# 2 (money prime vs. no prime) ANOVA was conducted
on perceptions of the organization’s competence. Because
we had included an additional factor to alter perceptions of
competency, we predicted and found an interaction effect
(F(1, 150) p 13.11, p ! .001). Contrasts showed that among
participants who were not primed with money, gDitty.com
was perceived to be more competent than gDitty.org (M.com
p 5.03, SD p 1.21 vs. M.org p 3.91, SD p 1.41; F(1, 150)
p 15.06, p ! .001). However, among participants who had
been primed with money, gDitty.org increased in perceived
competence to be on par with gDitty.com (M.com p 4.48,
SD p 1.49 vs. M.org p 4.92, SD p 1.19; F(1, 150) p 1.90,
p 1 .10). An additional set of contrasts confirmed that exposure to the money prime (vs. no prime) made gDitty.org
appear more competent (F(1, 150) p 10.65, p p .001).
To test hypothesis 3, the 2 (for-profit vs. nonprofit) # 2
(money prime vs. no prime) ANOVA was conducted on the
willingness to buy index. The results revealed a main effect
of organization type. In support of hypothesis 3, participants
were more willing to buy from gDitty.com than gDitty.org
(M.com p 4.49, SD p 1.72 vs. M.org p 3.16, SD p 1.60;
F(1, 150) p 6.04, p p .02). Moreover, an interaction effect
(F(1, 150) p 10.23, p p .002) revealed the main effect to
be moderated by the presence of a money prime. Followup contrasts showed that participants not primed with money
were more willing to buy from gDitty.com than gDitty.org,
again supporting hypothesis 3 (M.com p 4.78, SD p 1.77
vs. M.org p 3.17, SD p 1.60; F(1, 150) p 17.84, p ! .001).
However, this difference was eliminated for participants who
had been primed with money (M.com p 4.12, SD p 1.59 vs.
M.org p 4.33, SD p 2.09; F(1, 150) p .25, p 1 .10). An additional set of contrasts showed that when the gDitty was
framed as a dot-org, priming money increased willingness
to buy (F(1, 150) p 8.13, p p .005), whereas when gDitty
was framed as a dot-com, priming money did not change
willingness to buy (F(1, 150) p 2.74, p 1 .10; see fig. 3).
To test for the causal role of perceived competence on
participants’ willingness to buy from the organization, a
successful moderated mediation analysis was first conducted
(details in table 1). To more clearly illuminate the underlying
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
232
FIGURE 3
EXPERIMENT 3: WILLINGNESS TO BUY AND PERCEIVED
COMPETENCE ASSOCIATED WITH ORGANIZATION
TYPE, PRIMED WITH MONEY OR NO PRIME
perceived competence, the effect of prime was rendered
nonsignificant (b p !.09, t p .95, p 1 .10), but perceived
competence remained significant (b p .67 , t p 7.33, p !
.001; Sobel z p 3.06, p p .002), supportive of mediation.
Together, these results suggest that perceiving an organization to be low in competence dulls enthusiasm to buy a
product from a nonprofit (relative to a for-profit), but priming money can boost perceptions of competence, thereby
increasing willingness to buy.
The findings in experiment 3 highlight several points.
First, consumers assume differences between firms based on
three letters at the end of their domain name (.com vs. .org).
Second, stereotypes associated with these organizations appear to exist: nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits
are seen as competent (hypotheses 1 and 2). Third, for-profit
and nonprofit framing influences consumers’ willingness to
buy a product from the organization, whereby for-profits
dominate nonprofits (hypothesis 3). Fourth, perceived competence accounts for consumers’ varying desire to purchase
from the organization, again with for-profits outperforming
nonprofits (hypothesis 4). Fifth, and perhaps most striking,
we were able to alter the perception of nonprofits by exposing participants to a reminder of money via an incidental
exposure to an ad. This small visual prime was enough to
boost perceived competence to the level of competence associated with for-profits. As a result, consumers’ willingness
to buy from a nonprofit when they were primed with money
rose to an equivalent willingness to buy from for-profits
(hypothesis 5).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
process, two additional sets of mediation analyses were conducted. The first set was conducted just among those in the
no-prime conditions. First, willingness to buy was regressed
on organization type (b p !.44, t p 4.41, p ! .001). Next,
perceived competence was regressed on organization type
(b p !.40, t p 3.93, p ! .001). Then, willingness to buy
was regressed on perceived competence (b p .71, t p
10.05, p ! .001). Finally, when willingness to buy was regressed on organization type and perceived competence, the
effect of organization type became less significant (b p
!.17, t p 2.14, p p .04), whereas the effect of perceived
competence remained highly significant (b p .67, t p
8.57, p ! .001; Sobel z p !3.66, p ! .001), supportive of
mediation and hypothesis 4.
To examine the effect of the money prime, a second mediation analysis was conducted, focused only on the nonprofit conditions. First, willingness to buy was regressed on
prime (b p !.31, t p 2.74, p p .008). Next, perceived
competence was regressed on prime (b p !.36, t p 3.30,
p p .002). Then, willingness to buy was regressed on perceived competence (b p .70, t p 8.23, p ! .001). Finally,
when willingness to buy was regressed on both prime and
This work demonstrated that judgments of warmth and
competence play key roles in consumers’ perceptions of
companies. Three experiments showed that consumers naturally draw on these dimensions to distinguish between nonprofits and for-profits. Thus, nonprofits and for-profits are
associated with distinct reputations that fundamentally color
consumers’ views and reactions. The results of experiment
1 show that while nonprofits are perceived as more warm,
for-profits are perceived as more competent. The results of
experiments 2 and 3 suggested that these perceptions influence consumers’ willingness to buy from these organizations: consumers are more willing to buy a product when
they view it as being made by a for-profit than a nonprofit.
Further, this effect seems to be driven by perceptions of the
firm’s competence. Consequently, when the perceived competence of a nonprofit is boosted by a credible endorsement
(experiment 2) or subtle alignment with money (experiment
3), discrepancies in willingness to buy disappear. In fact,
when nonprofit firms are perceived as both warm and competent, consumers become more willing to buy a product
from that firm.
This research makes advances by detailing the specific
boons and banes that accompany being a nonprofit or forprofit organization. First, it is striking that judgments of
firms are governed by the same dimensions along which
judgments of other people are known to occur. This finding
FIRM STEREOTYPES MATTER
233
FIGURE 4
GENERAL DISCUSSION: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF WARMTH, COMPETENCE, AND ADMIRATION ON WILLINGNESS TO BUY
is particularly intriguing given that firms do not carry the
same friend/foe ramifications that apply to and likely underlie the two-dimensional structure of person and group
perceptions (Fiske et al. 2007).
Second, our results demonstrate a major difference from
findings regarding the warmth and competence perceptions
of people. It is well established that perceptions of people
are better predicted by perceptions of warmth than by perceptions of competence (for reviews, see Fiske et al. 2007;
Wojciszke 2005). However, in our studies of firms, perceived
competence predicted global endpoints (e.g., willingness to
buy) better than perceived warmth. In this regard, our work
represents an intriguing departure from work on perceptions
of humans.
Across all studies, we found robust evidence that consumers hold distinct views of nonprofits and for-profits.
Nonetheless, we are agnostic as to whether the stereotypes
are valid. Many stereotypes are somewhat accurate (Jussim
2005). In addition, industry insiders (Moret 2004) say that
the qualities that lead to promotions for nonprofit employees
are quite different than the qualities that lead to promotions
for for-profit employees. Promotions within for-profit companies appear to be a function of abilities, whereas promotions within nonprofits appear to be more a function of
loyalty to the organization’s mission. However, these observations should be interpreted tentatively in that they are
not large-scale empirical studies of a diverse set of firms.
We suggest that one important avenue for future research
is to empirically measure the validity of these stereotypes.
Consumers clearly hold them, but it is still an open question
as to whether they are wholly inaccurate, accurate, or somewhere in between.
Admiration for Firms: The Coexistence of
Warmth and Competence
Can warmth and competence coexist within a company?
If so, what psychological reactions result? Although we focused on establishing whether these stereotypes exist in the
context of companies and the implications on marketplace
behaviors, our experimental design allows us to test the
combinatory effect of warmth and competence. In experiment 2, participants were provided with semidirect information that the given nonprofit was in fact competent
(through a high credibility source such as the Wall Street
Journal). Thus, we might be able to create a “golden quadrant” where warmth and competence may coexist in the
minds of the consumer by boosting consumer perceptions
of nonprofits’ competence to levels of for-profits.
To more deeply explore the psychological reactions to a
nonprofit that is endorsed by a high credibility source, we
included ancillary variables in experiment 2 focusing on the
notion of consumers’ admiration for the organization. Admiration is the emotional state that perceivers feel when
groups are perceived to be high in both warmth and competence (Fiske et al. 2002). In the marketing realm, for
example, when consumers perceive that the underlying motive of an organization is more than simply selling goods
and that it incorporates socially responsible motives as well,
admiration for the organization often follows (Fogg et al.
2003). Hence, increasing a nonprofit’s perceived competence to be on par with its already high level of perceived
warmth might place the nonprofit in the golden quadrant,
which would translate to admiration for the organization.
We hypothesized that when a nonprofit (vs. for-profit) organization is deemed credible, consumers will report greater
admiration for the firm. This feeling of admiration, we suspected, would also translate into great willingness to buy
(fig. 4), either as an independent or additive mechanism to
perceived competence.
Thus, experiment 2’s participants reported their admiration for the organization toward the end of the survey on
four items (“I admire organizations such as World of Good”;
“I feel inspired by organizations such as World of Good”;
“I respect organizations such as World of Good”; “I like
organizations such as World of Good,” a p .94). We conducted a 2 (organization type) # 2 (endorsement) ANOVA
on the admiration index and found, as expected, a significant
234
interaction (F(1, 121) p 5.85, p p .02). When endorsed by
the Detroit Free Press, WorldofGood.org and WorldofGood.com did not differ in how much they were admired
(Mnp p 4.78, SD p 1.24 vs. Mfp p 4.84, SD p 1.39;
F(1, 121) p .03, p 1 .10). However, when endorsed by the
Wall Street Journal, WorldofGood.org evoked greater admiration than WorldofGood.com (Mnp p 5.51, SD p 1.16
vs. Mfp p 4.42, SD p 1.51; F(1, 121) p 10.74, p p .001).
Furthermore, feelings of admiration mediated the effect
of organization type on willingness to buy among participants who were in the Wall Street Journal condition. First,
among Wall Street Journal participants, willingness to buy
was regressed on organization type (b p .35, t p 2.93,
p p .005). Next, the admiration index was regressed on
organization type (b p .38, t p 3.26, p p .002). Then,
willingness to buy was regressed on admiration (b p .58,
t p 5.59, p ! .001). Finally, when willingness to buy was
regressed on both organization type and admiration, the effect of organization type became nonsignificant (b p .15,
t p 1.34, p 1 .10), whereas the effect of admiration remained highly significant (b p .52 , t p 4.69, p ! .001; Sobel z p 2.82, p p .005), in support of mediation. Among
participants considering an organization endorsed by the
Detroit Free Press, organization type did not significantly
influence admiration (b p !.02, t p !.18, p 1 .10), rendering mediation analysis unnecessary.
Together, these results suggest that with a weak outside
endorsement, for-profits benefit more than do nonprofits because consumers see them as possessing greater competence
and therefore want to buy from them. However, with a strong
outside endorsement, nonprofits benefit more than do forprofits because consumers see them as having greater
warmth and competence, thereby evoking consumer admiration, which led to enhanced willingness to buy. These
findings offer tips for the types of stereotypes that do a
disservice to both for-profits (which are devoid of warmth)
and nonprofits (which are devoid of competence). On the
outcome side of the equation, it is important to note that
admiration for the firm acted as a distinct driver of buying
intent (separate from perceived competence); hence there
are multiple routes by which consumer behavior can be
influenced in this domain.
Future research is needed to advance several aspects of
these novel findings. One, how sticky are feelings of admiration toward firms? Two, when do for-profit companies (which already are imbued with competence) cultivate
perceptions of warmth and trustworthiness (Aaker et al.
2004)? For example, do for-profits that align their social
mission and business strategy cultivate trust (McElhaney
2009)? Three, what are alternative mechanisms by which a
nonprofit can strengthen perceptions of competence while
not weakening perceptions of warmth? One exemplary case
is that of HopeLab, which combines rigorous research and
data-driven approaches with the social cause of fighting cancer (Knutson 2009; Liu and Aaker 2008). Germane to the
current work is whether these types of nonprofits are pro-
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
tected from the general perception that nonprofits are destitute and “needy” (experiment 1).
Zero-Acquaintance Perceptions of Companies
Stepping back, this package of results raises the general
question: how do consumers judge an organization if they
have not heard of it, as in the case of a start-up? In the
search for information, consumers may perceive organizational frame, that is, nonprofit versus for-profit, as a filter
through which they may interpret information about a product or firm. The implications of these findings are of both
theoretical and practical import. First, to what degree is the
distinction between for-profits and nonprofits even discernable for consumers? The existence of dot-com and dot-org
domain name endings offer consumers an immediately
knowable guide as to whether an organization is for-profit
or nonprofit. Thirty years ago, consumers did not have such
a cue to use (Permut 1981). With the Internet, they now do.
Second, does the distinction between for- and nonprofits
affect purchase behavior? At first glance it would appear
that it does, as products made by for-profits (vs. nonprofits)
enjoyed more favorable willingness to buy in our experiments. Yet organization type was only a proxy for the more
influential variable of perceived competence; we observed
that perceptions of the for-profit organization’s competence
influenced willingness to buy more than the organizational
frame (for-profit vs. nonprofit) did per se. With cues that
boosted the perceived competence of nonprofits, nonprofits
outperformed for-profits, and organizational type (and not
perceived competence) dropped in importance. Thus, better
understanding the tools that most effectively convey competence (e.g. subbranding, endorsements, sponsored events)
is of significant importance for nonprofits—particularly in
light of the fact that when companies are admired, consumers often become more loyal (Aaker 2004, 268–69).
Caveats and Calls for Future Research
This research was inspired in part by calls for research
to explore social good, broadly defined (e.g., Cuddy, Norton,
and Fiske 2005; Grandey et al. 2005). Our aim was to create
a strong theoretical distinction (warm and competent) that
would allow for a relatively clean examination of a problem
that is commonly witnessed in marketing: the impact of forprofit or nonprofit stereotypes on consumer judgments. The
distinction between nonprofits and for-profits is increasingly
important. A growing number of nonprofits are operating
in industries that were traditionally run by for-profits (e.g.,
hospitals, athletic centers, summer camps). For-profit firms
too are getting into the nonprofit realm: Mozilla operates
an online store (http://store.mozilla.org/), and Google operates both a dot-com and dot-org arm. Thus, our work
speaks to both the advantages and disadvantages of stereotypes held about such firms.
However, these studies come with limitations that afford
opportunities for future research. First, are there conditions
when perceived warmth might drive willingness to buy? We
FIRM STEREOTYPES MATTER
proffer that, in categories in which trust relationships between companies and customers are critical (e.g. businessto-business, hospitals), perceived warmth may determine
willingness to buy to a greater degree, perhaps more so than
competence. In light of the fact that consumers believe nonprofit hospitals and health plans to be more trustworthy,
humane, and fair than for-profits (Schlesinger, Mitchell, and
Gray 2004), product category may well determine when
perceived warmth would predict behavioral intent. Also,
there may be cultural effects that moderate the basic effects
found here. For instance, given that East Asian cultures tend
to value communal qualities, whereas North American cultures tend to value agentic qualities (Fiske et al. 1998),
perceived warmth (and trust) may well play a greater role
in purchase behavior in East Asian than North American
cultures.
Second, experiment 2 explored the possibility that nonprofits could be seen as both competent and warm and, in
so doing, revealed that consumers can come to admire companies, which in turn impacts willingness to buy and online
behavior. Left unaddressed is the question, Upon producing
a perception of high warmth and competence, would a forprofit enjoy heightened levels of consumer admiration, and
would such admiration also fuel increased willingness to
buy? Research examining this question might delve into the
meaning of admiration and unpack the reasons why consumers admire companies. To illustrate, research suggests
there are two types of trust: sensing that another has one’s
best interests in mind (emotional or warm trust) and believing that another can enact the behaviors to accomplish
the given task (rational or cognitive trust; McAllister 1995).
Similar dichotomies may underlie the meaning of consumer
admiration, suggesting that although both nonprofits and forprofits can be seen as highly competent and warm, consumer
admiration for each may differ.
Third, additional research is needed to examine the stability or sensitivity of the 2 # 2 matrix of organizational
stereotypes. Cuddy et al. (2005) argued that the conceptual
categorization suggests that people make upward assimilative social comparisons toward others who are perceived as
warm and competent (eliciting admiration and pride) but
that people make downward contrastive comparisons toward
others who are perceived as incompetent and cold (eliciting
contempt and disgust; Fiske et al. 2002; see also classic
work by Bakan 1966; Leary 1957). To what degree do historical and cultural events such as the U.S. banking crisis
alter the way consumers view products made by those organizations (e.g., Citibank, Smith Barney)? Speaking directly to the two dimensions, would companies more effectively rebuild their reputations by cultivating perceptions of
competence or perceptions of warmth?
Fourth, although this research suggests that organizations
may indeed be able to foster competence and warmth, it is
mute on which reputation to foster first. Is it better to cultivate respect first (which comes through competence) and
then add the warmth, or the converse? Some data in experiment 2 hint that establishing competence before warmth
235
(vs. the converse) may be more effective for long-run success. When the organization was endorsed by the Detroit Free
Press, participants were more willing to buy from a for-profit
than from a nonprofit (M.com p 4.96, SD p 1.04 vs. M.org p
4.08, SD p 1.05; F(1, 121) p 10.29, p p .002). However,
this effect was reversed when the organization was endorsed
by the Wall Street Journal; participants were more willing
to buy from a nonprofit than from a for-profit (M.org p
4.74, SD p 1.16 vs. M.com p 3.92, SD p 1.03; F(1, 121)
p 9.09, p p .003). To the degree that gaining endorsement
from sources like the Wall Street Journal is challenging,
organizational competence may be the perception to establish first. However, future work is needed to explore this
premise with experimental paradigms that allow for dynamic
changes in consumer perceptions over time. Research addressing these questions might also hone in on the reputation
enjoyed by social enterprises, oft heralded as a blend between nonprofits and for-profits due to their focus on science
in concert with mission.
Finally, do the links from warmth and competence to
behavior in social interactions apply in the context of companies? Warmth stereotypes elicit certain types of behaviors
in social interactions. For example, a target seen as warm
is more likely to be helped, whereas competent targets are
less likely to be ignored (Cuddy et al. 2007). Are consumers
more likely to work, volunteer, or spread positive word-ofmouth for companies they perceive as warm (vs. competent)? Are they less likely cheat or steal from such companies
(Mazar and Ariely 2006)? These are intriguing questions
for further inquiry.
CONCLUSION
People judge companies along similar dimensions as they
do other people. Companies billed as nonprofits are in general considered to be high in warmth, whereas those billed
as for-profits are viewed as high in competence. Competence
perceptions drive willingness to buy, which means that consumers are more eager to buy a product from a for-profit
than a nonprofit. With suggestions of credibility, however,
one can move perceptions of nonprofits such that they too
are viewed as competent and their products desirable to
purchase. Furthermore, one can create a perception of nonprofits as highly warm and competent engendering feelings
of admiration, which lead to enhanced willingness to buy.
These effects persist and play out in actual behavior. The
studies here intermixed concepts grounded in basic perception with perceptions of firms’ goals for profitability to reveal the impact on consumer beliefs, emotions, and marketplace actions.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David (2004), Brand Portfolio Strategy, New York: Free
Press.
Aaker, Jennifer (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), 347–57.
236
Aaker, Jennifer, Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel (2004),
“When Good Brands Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (June), 1–18.
Aggarwal, Pankaj and Ann L. McGill (2007), “Is That Car Smiling
at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34
(December), 468–79.
Alter, Jonathan (2007), “Want to Buy My Students a $392 Camcorder: A Nonprofit Uses the Web to Work Marketplace
Magic,” http://www.slate.com/id/2159771/.
Arrow, Kenneth J. (1963), “Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics
of Medical Care,” American Economic Review, 53 (December), 941–73.
Bakan, David (1966), The Duality of Human Existence, Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Baumeister, Roy F., Kathleen D. Vohs, and David C. Funder
(2007), “Psychology as the Science of Self-Reports and Finger
Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior?” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 (December), 396–403.
Berger, Jonah, Michaela Draganska, and Itamar Simonson (2007),
“The Influence of Product Variety on Brand Perception and
Choice,” Marketing Science, 26 (8), 460–72.
Blizzard, Rick (2002), “For-Profit vs. Not-for-Profit: Two Paths,
Same Outcome,” http://www.gallup.com/poll/7042/ForProfit
-vs-NotforProfit-Two-Paths-Same-Outcome.aspx.
Burger, Jerry M. (2009), “Replicating Milgram: Would People Still
Obey Today?” American Psychologist, 64 (January), 1–11.
Casciaro, Tiziana, and Miguel Sousa Lobo (2008), “When Competence Is Irrelevant: The Role of Interpersonal Affect in TaskRelated Ties,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (December), 655–84.
Chemers, Martin (2001), “Leadership Effectiveness: An Integrative
Review,” in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology:
Group Processes, ed. Michael A. Hogg and R. Scott Tindale,
Oxford: Blackwell, 376–99.
Cuddy, Amy J. C., Susan T. Fiske, and Peter Glick (2004), “When
Professionals Become Mothers, Warmth Doesn’t Cut the Ice,”
Journal of Social Issues, 60 (December), 701–18.
——— (2007), “The BIAS Map: Behaviors from Intergroup Affect
and Stereotypes,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (April), 631–48.
——— (2008), “Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: The Stereotype Content Model
and the BIAS Map,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (March), 61–149.
Cuddy, Amy J. C., Michael I. Norton, and Susan T. Fiske (2005),
“This Old Stereotype: The Pervasiveness and Persistence of
the Elderly Stereotype,” Journal of Social Issues, 61 (June),
265–83.
Devine, Irene and Paul Halpern (2001), “Implicit Claims: The Role
of Corporate Reputation in Value Creation,” Corporate Reputation Review, 4 (April), 42–49.
Erdem, Tulin and Joffre Swait (2004), “Brand Credibility, Brand
Consideration, and Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research,
31 (June), 191–98.
Fiske, Alan Page, Shinobu Kitayama, Hazel Rose Markus, and
Richard E. Nisbett (1998), Cultural Matrix of Social Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Peter Glick (2007), “Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence,” Trends in Cognitive Science, 11 (February), 77–83.
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu (2002),
“A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and
Competition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82 (June), 878–902.
Fogg, B. J., Cathy Soohoo, David Danielson, Leslie Marable, Julianne Stanford, and Ellen Tauber (2003), “How Do People
Evaluate a Web Site’s Credibility?” in Designing for User
Experience, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1–15.
Fombrun, Charles and Mark Shanley (1990), “What’s in a Name?
Reputation Building and Corporate Strategy,” Academy of
Management Journal, 33 (June), 233–58.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing
Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 343–73.
Goldsmith, Ronald E., Barbara A. Lafferty, and Stephen J. Newell
(2000), “The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity
Credibility on Consumer Reactions to Ads and Brands,” Journal of Advertising, 3 (September), 43–54.
Grandey, Alicia, Glenda Fisk, Anna Mattila, Karen Jansen, and
Lori Sideman (2005), “Is ‘Service with a Smile’ Enough?
Authenticity of Positive Displays during Service Encounters,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96
(January), 38–55.
Hansmann, Henry B. (1981), “Reforming Nonprofit Corporation
Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 129 (January),
497–623.
Judd, Charles M., Laurie James-Hawkins, Vincent Yzerbyt, and
Yoshihisa Kashima (2005), “Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding the Relations between Judgments of Competence and Warmth,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 89 (December), 899–913.
Jussim, Lee (2005). “Accuracy: Criticisms, Controversies, Criteria,
Components, and Cognitive Processes,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 37, ed. M. P. Zanna, New
York: Academic Press, 1–93.
Kelly, George A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs,
Vol. 1, New York: Norton.
Knutson, Ryan (2009), “How a Third-Person Shooter Helps Fight
Cancer,” http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/09/10/how-a-video
game-helps-fight-cancer/.
Leary, Timothy (1957), Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality,
New York: Ronald Press.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Minette Drumwright, and Bridgette Braig
(2004), “The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on
Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits,”
Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 16–32.
Liu, Wendy and Jennifer Aaker (2008), “The Happiness of Giving:
The Time-Ask Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35
(October), 543–57.
Mazar, Nina and Dan Ariely (2006), “Dishonesty in Everyday Life
and Its Policy Implications,” Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 25 (Spring), 117–26.
McAllister, Daniel J. (1995), “Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust
as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1) 24–59.
McElhaney, Kellie (2009), Just Good Business, San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Mogilner, Cassie and Jennifer Aaker (2009), “The Time versus
Money Effect: Shifting Product Attitudes and Decisions
through Personal Connection,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (August), 277–91.
Moret, Laurie (2004), “Spotlight on Consulting Issues: Coaching
FIRM STEREOTYPES MATTER
Cross Roads,” Consulting Psychologist, 6 (Fall), http://bit.ly/
3udaJd.
Moscarani, Giuseppe (2007), “Competence Implies Credibility,”
American Economic Review, 97 (March), 37–63.
Permut, Steven E. (1981), “Consumer Perceptions of Nonprofit
Enterprise: A Comment on Hansmann,” Yale Law Journal,
90 (June), 1623–32.
Rosenberg, Seymour, Carnot Nelson, and P. S. Vivekananthan
(1968), “A Multidimensional Approach to the Structure of
Personality Impressions,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 9 (August), 283–94.
Schlesinger, Mark, Shannon Mitchell, and Bradford H. Gray
(2004), “Public Expectations of Nonprofit and For-Profit
Ownership in American Medicine: Clarifications and Implications,” Health Affairs, 23 (November), 181–91.
Sinclair, Lisa and Beverley Fehr (2005), “Voice versus Loyalty:
Self-Construals and Responses to Dissatisfaction in Romantic
Relationships,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
41 (May), 298–304.
Sternthal, Brian, Ruby Dholakia, and Clark Leavitt (1978), “The
Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive
Response,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (3), 252–60.
237
Tiedens, Larissa Z. (2001), “Anger and Advancement versus Sadness and Subjugation: The Effect of Negative Emotion Expressions on Social Status Conferral,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 80 (January), 86–94.
Vohs, Kathleen D., Nicole L. Mead, and Miranda R. Goode (2006),
“The Psychological Consequences of Money,” Science, 314
(November), 1154–56.
Wojciszke, Bogdan (2005), “Morality and Competence in Person
and Self-Perception,” European Review of Social Psychology,
16 (August), 155–88.
Ybarra, Oscar, Emily Chan, and Denise Park (2001), “Young and
Old Adults’ Concerns about Morality and Competence,” Motivation and Emotion, 25 (June), 85–100.
Yzerbyt, Vincent, Valerie Provost, and Olivier Corneille (2005),
“Not Competent but Warm. . . . Really? Compensatory Stereotypes in the French-Speaking World,” Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 8 (July), 291–308.
Zhou, Xinyue, Kathleen D. Vohs, and Roy F. Baumeister (2009),
“The Symbolic Power of Money: Reminders of Money Alter
Social Distress and Physical Pain,” Psychological Science, 20
(May), 700–706.